Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38481632›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2024

Reactive gliosis in traumatic brain injury: a comprehensive review.

Zuzana Amlerova, Martina Chmelova, Miroslava Anderova, Lydia Vargova

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
21.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nanozyme-based therapeutic strategies for traumatic brain injury.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Development of an HInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zuzana AmlerovaDepartment of Neuroscience, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Martina ChmelovaDepartment of Neuroscience, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Miroslava AnderovaDepartment of Neuroscience, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Lydia VargovaDepartment of Neuroscience, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Charles University · CZCzech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Experimental Medicine · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most common pathological conditions impacting the central nervous system (CNS). A neurological deficit associated with TBI results from a complex of pathogenetic mechanisms including glutamate excitotoxicity, inflammation, demyelination, programmed cell death, or the development of edema. The critical components contributing to CNS response, damage control, and regeneration after TBI are glial cells-in reaction to tissue damage, their activation, hypertrophy, and proliferation occur, followed by the formation of a glial scar. The glial scar creates a barrier in damaged tissue and helps protect the CNS in the acute phase post-injury. However, this process prevents complete tissue recovery in the late/chronic phase by producing permanent scarring, which significantly impacts brain function. Various glial cell types participate in the scar formation, but this process is mostly attributed to reactive astrocytes and microglia, which play important roles in several brain pathologies. Novel technologies including whole-genome transcriptomic and epigenomic analyses, and unbiased proteomics, show that both astrocytes and microglia represent groups of heterogenic cell subpopulations with different genomic and functional characteristics, that are responsible for their role in neurodegeneration, neuroprotection and regeneration. Depending on the representation of distinct glia subpopulations, the tissue damage as well as the regenerative processes or delayed neurodegeneration after TBI may thus differ in nearby or remote areas or in different brain structures. This review summarizes TBI as a complex process, where the resultant effect is severity-, region- and time-dependent and determined by the model of the CNS injury and the distance of the explored area from the lesion site. Here, we also discuss findings concerning intercellular signaling, long-term impacts of TBI and the possibilities of novel therapeutical approaches. We believe that a comprehensive study with an emphasis on glial cells, involved in tissue post-injury processes, may be helpful for further research of TBI and be the decisive factor when choosing a TBI model.

Indexed as

experimental modelsgliaintercellular signalingneurodegenerationneuroinflammationtraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID38481632
PMCPMC10933082
OpenAlexW4392235734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.